Monday, January 16, 2017

It was a small premise and it caused a major and new interpretation of Vatican Council II and Michael Davies did not know about it.

It was a small premise and it caused a major and new interpretation of Vatican Council II and Michael Davies did not know about it.He wrote his book on the liturgy and the Mass while interpreting Vatican Council II with 'that small premise'.The trads and sedes blame the Novus Ordo Mass when their theology has its foundation on a false premise.Change the premise, or rather get rid of it,and you change the ecclesiology of the Mass.Michael Davis did not know this.

We now know. So we have Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II (Cushingite). Davies was a Cushingite.On this point he was a liberal like Cardinal Ratzinger.

Davies remained politically correct with the Left since he was interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.Like Archbishop Lefebvre and Dietrich von Hildebrand he did not know that it was the premise which was the cause of the bad 'magisterial' interpretation of the Council.

Michael Davies did not know that the theology and ecclesiology of the Novus Ordo Mass is the same as that of the Tridentine Rite Mass.He thought that the ecclesiology had changed ( and it had with the premise) but did not know the precise source for this change.

He was aware of 'the bad fruits of Vatican Council II' (interpreted with the premise) which were there for all to see.

But like Bishop Bernard Fellay today, he would only criticize Vatican Council II for its conclusions, not knowing the specific cause of the conclusion.

What was the missing link? What did they miss out on?

The error was simply assuming invisible cases were physically visible in the present times.It was an objective error.

Since invisible cases were visible they then inferred that there were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They assumed they had found a rupture with 'the ecclesiocentrism of the past'.

So for example,Nostra Aetate says a Muslim can be saved.Why? Since there were known cases for the cardinals.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, hypothetical cases, were assumed to be known .They concluded at that time that there was known salvation outside the Church without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So since there was known salvation outside the Church, Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II could say that a Muslim and a Jew was saved, there was salvation for them in their religion.The Church was no more Feeneyite.Cushing had this approved in 1949.

While the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441) and the Catechism of Pope Pius X says every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation the Letter to the Holy Office 1949 denied it.Michael Davies did not complain.

On the SSPX website Fr.Peter Scott, former Superior of the SSPX in the USA was telling SSPX members at their chapels to not associate with the 'Feeneyites'.The message was placed on line.He was a Cushingite.

Fr.Richard Williamson( now bishop) also wrote a piece on the SSPX website condemning Fr. Leonard Feeney.More Cushingism and irrational reasoning.

The 1949 Letter was saying invisible cases are objective exceptions to EENS and Bishop Williamson,Fr.Scott and Michael Davies did not notice it.

This was also the reasoning at Vatican Council II and Michael Davies was not aware of it.He died without knowing that Vatican Council II could be interpreted without this faulty reasoning, violating the Principle of Non Contradiction.He did not know that without this premise on invisible cases being visible the conclusion would be different.There would be no change in ecclesiology. This would be a major change.Since with the premise the Church as at that time in uncharted theological waters.If they were aware of the false premise there would be no need for Archbishop Lefebvre to object to Vatican Council II.However if this was known, the magisterium kept it a secret.Rahner,Kung and Ratzinger used the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and when Lefebvre did not accept the premise and conclusion he was excommunicated.It was similar to Fr.Leonard Feeney who did not accept the baptism of desire etc as being an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He was excommmunicated.Then the excommunication was lifted without him having to recant and luckily before he died.Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated by those who used an irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council II, which was heresy in itself.

Archbishop Lefebvre and Michael Davies did not know that there would be no change in ecclesiology at Holy Mass.No one told them that all they had to do was to avoid that small premise.

So many changes have been made in the Church based on Vatican Council II and this has been attributed to the Holy Spirit when the exact cause was an irrational premise which violated the Principle of Non Contradiction creating a non traditional and heretical conclusion.

It can still be avoided today but traditionalists are following the error of Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Archbishop Lefebvre and others.-Lionel Andrades